Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed.

Creationism - is an ID position, That i would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Ken ham would be one example

Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example.

Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID.

Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro

Philosopher Peter Kosso explains that calling something a "theory" says little about the degree of certainty backing the idea. As he states, "neither 'theoretical' nor 'law' is about being true or false, or about being well-tested or speculative." In Kosso's view, a theory "describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe." Thus "some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which."

Some have a more stringent definition of theory as something substantiated by experimentation or makes predictions. But nothing in Science is conclusive, due to the problem of induction and other things. Science is tentative. And substantiation almost becomes int he eye of the beholder. Take for instance certain Laws. A scientific law says A then B holds true in every observation with stated conditions. Let us take the theory of relativity which is considered well established because it's (A then B) is constantly and accurately observed in all situations.

ID as an origin theory is probably more like a soft science like history or archeology than a hard one that can measure relativistic effects like astronomy. But the question is, Is ID substantiated by experimentation? Yes. it is supported by many experiments. Scientist proposed an abiogenesis type hypothesis and performed an experiment to see how likely it was a cause. And in every case abiogenesis found to be insufficient to explain life in a real environment. Most of these experiments are just addressing the real structure of molecules. But the encoding of information is a key component of ID.

Notice this is a common fallacious refutation to ID:

Intelligent design is a scientific theory2: A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an "intelligent" agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.http://www.ucsusa.org...

ID does not posit whom or what this Intelligent Agency is. So identifying it's existence is not relevant. Such as coming across a monument in the jungle, saying it is man made and not being able to identify the people that made it are 2 different issues. And ID of the monument has to be accepted before the tribe of people can even be searched for. (maybe that's why some people don't want ID to be scientific they don't want to investigate for a designer).

What makes panspermia more scientific an explanation than ID? Having MIT professors and slew of biologist proposing it as a viable scientific explanation for the emergence of life? Because it doesn't make possible a God. just makes the ludicrous idea of abiogenesis possible through the power of imagining any kind of world possible any where in the universe.

But notice later on the same UCSUSA article writes: "The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena." So then ID is scientific. The article writer appears to shift the goal post of what defines a scientific explanation when refuting ID and moving it back when defending Atheist bias.

I see this bare rejection of ID as a bias. It is non-scientific if it posits something other than humans creating something or something other than humans being intelligent.

When we talk about known man-made objects it is clear to see the limitations of nature to make structures that store information, structures that are composed of mutually exclusive material, ect..

Everyone limits natural processes to produce a teapot in orbit, a brick, a plane, a Stonehenge, a pyramid, an iphone, a space shuttle.. BUT when the structure and machinery of a cell are looked at suddenly nature has no limits of what it can do. Given chance.

but let's investigate chance. First there are impossibilities. No matter how many times a 6 sided die is rolled 22 will not come up. Then we look at statistically how likely something is. Now statistics of this kind are more like heuristics than confirmation of anything. But one thing is apparent, A virgin birth has a higher chance of happening then a precursor-evolution effected-entity emerging from natural processes happening.

I would say even simple life is impossible by abiogenesis. That like a light bulb that is the combination of glass made in a furnace and copper made in rollers, elements of life are made in different environments that can not mutually exist at the same time. Or even sequentially. Like the light bulb dropping a bunch of glass bulbs into a box with a bunch of rolled wire will not produce a light bulb. And cellular life is even more prone to disintegrating then this. There is no environment to produce and arrange the elements needed for even basic life.

I say that out of the variation of Intelligent Design I push for more scientific kind of OOL like Myer and Behe. Tho I do disagree with some of the arguments by them.

At 2/28/2015 9:29:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

ID has been repeatedly exposed as pseudoscience by scientists, Christian scientists, and even conservative Christian judges (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005.)

ID keeps inventing new ways to articulate the same fallacies:

1. The promotion of false dualities (e.g. either nothing is complex or convenient, or everything is created);2. The admission of the supernatural as an explanation for anything; and3. Attacks on established science that are subsequently refuted as problems of ignorance, rather than theory.

It has a singularly poor record in winning major court cases -- apparently even conservative, unscientific judges can tell baloney when they smell it.

At 2/28/2015 9:29:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

ID has been repeatedly exposed as pseudoscience by scientists, Christian scientists, and even conservative Christian judges (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005.)

ID keeps inventing new ways to articulate the same fallacies:

1. The promotion of false dualities (e.g. either nothing is complex or convenient, or everything is created);2. The admission of the supernatural as an explanation for anything; and3. Attacks on established science that are subsequently refuted as problems of ignorance, rather than theory.

It has a singularly poor record in winning major court cases -- apparently even conservative, unscientific judges can tell baloney when they smell it.

Right because court is a great place for scientific theories to be weighed, and truth is discerned in court.

Remember the scopes trial that got evolution taught in schools. Based on a boars tooth found in Louisianan being passed off a s human transition fossil.

Court cases have no bearing on truth. And if this was a politics or social forum I would debate how Law is not a system of justice but reparations.

Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate and Atheist discussing his view of biological life being intelligently designed.http://sms.cam.ac.uk...

The problem of how life came into existence is a major challenge for biology. I shall argue for an explanation involving the idea that a more elementary form of life, not dependent on matter, existed prior to the big bang, and evolved at the level of ideas...